Comin' Around to Bite You

I went in to Best Buy the other day to shop for a new laptop computer.

The Circuit City store that we had in town was a casualty of that company's recent bankruptcy, so it closed and left us really with just one major electronics store in Pensacola. Although I generally shopped at Best Buy when the Circuit City store was open, the advantage of having both nearby was a benefit to me as a consumer.

I tend to be very deliberative when buying "big ticket" items like computers. I want to get the right one for the job and I don't want to regret having bought the item, either because I didn't need it after all or I should have purchased a different one. So, I tend to ask questions and compare items, then I'll frequently go home and sleep on it.

So, while I was in the "shopping" phase, I approached a sales clerk and asked him what he thought the best multi-tasking llaptop computer manufacturer they carried was and he told me as he breezed past me. Then, he paused, turned part of the way around and said, "just like I told you before." Not that it mtters, but I hadn't asked this question before, but apparently someone had. To make a long story short, I told him and his supervisor that those kinds of remarks are unnecessary. The clerk didn't get it; in fact, he didn't want to hear it at all (which is why I ended up talking to his supervisor). I'm not sure the supervisor really got it either because he didn't give me any sense that he found the clerk's remarks inappropriate.

I returned to the store the following day and bought the computer anyway. If I had had the sense that this was an institutional cultural failing, I probably would have found another way to buy the computer, even if it meant shopping online. My experiences the following day will probably now move me in that direction.

So, I bought the computer and took it home. I pulled it out of the box and started setting it up. As I laid my hands on the keys, my forefingers rested on the two keys with the raised reference knobs and I starting typing to set the computer up. I looked at what I had typed and there were all kinds of typos. I tried it again and got the same result. I looked down at the keyboard to see what my problem was and found that the raised knob that was supposed to be on the "j" key was on the "k" key.

I called the Best Buy Geek Squad (their resident technology experts) at the local store and told the guy what I discovered. After I described the problem, he said "okay...", I guess waiting for me to explain why that was a problem. I explained it to him and he said, "they've changed the typing rules." Let me say that again. He said, "they've changed the typing rules," which means he wanted me to believe that the reason my reference knobs were on the wrong keys was because the Lords of Typing had gotten together and decided to change how a person rests his hands on the keyboard and had thus influenced Toshiba to change their keyboard accordingly.

Well, I had test-driven one of these in the store, so I was pretty sure he was mistaken. After being patched through to the sales floor, I was able to confirm that my machine was an anomaly - no change to the typing rules.

I write all of that to say that it is possible that Best Buy is becoming complacent in light of the failure of its primary competitor. If that trend is institutional, Best Buy will go the way that Circuit City did once a new competitor shows up in the marketplace. It might not be for another 10-15 years, but poor customer service is a very good motivator for new enterprise.

Here's an example. We have a Home Depot near our home and the service there was TERRIBLE. About a year or so ago, Lowe's opened a store right next door to it and they're knocking the business stiff. You can't hardly take a step in a department there without having someone greet you or ask you if you need help. Service works.

I remember after our last big hurricane (Ivan), there was a lot of tree clearing and roof work that needed to be done all throughout the area. There was a lot of business to be had if you were in the business and ready to do the business. Unfortunately, a good number of these businesses didn't see the business for what it was and saw it instead as a windfall that made them complacent with regard to returning phone calls, bidding reasonably, and so on. Well, the roofs are fixed and the trees are cleaned up now and what these companies have discovered is that the roofers did about 15 years of business (because that's how long a roof lasts, generally) in 6 months and the tree trimmers did about 5 years of business in the same period of time. There was no windfall; it was simply an advance on business. Many of them behaved as though they had a windfall and behaved like they were high rollers and divas. Now, we're in tougher economic times and the bite is particularly hard for them.

The moral is that business cycles are unpredictable, and specific consumer reactions to customer service tend to vary with these business cycles. However, one thing that doesn't change is consumer memory. When the marketplace presents options - which it always does in a market economy - consumer memory of past experiences plays a significant role in determining consumer behavior.

For businesses, another way of understanding the business cycle from a productivity standpoint is to remember these words: "what goes around, comes around." My advice to Best Buy and other businesses today is not to allow yourself to become complacent in our current economic climate, and to take care that your actions and attitudes today don't come around to bite you later.

The Axis of Naïveté

Some political pundits who are trying to help us find a way to appreciate the tepid U. S. response to the democratic crisis in Iran are saying that the American response is best appreciated when contrasted to the previous Administration's reckless "Axis of Evil" references in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.

We have unfortunately forgotten much about that day in 2001 and the events leading up to that day. Let's remember that the World Trade Center was attacked on the morning of September 11, 2001 in which 2,974 people were killed in New York City. This attack had been preceded by the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York, the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the U. S. Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

George W. Bush was inaugurated in January of 2001 and in September, the World Trade Center was attacked and toppled. Almost immediately, President Bush announced the Global War on Terror and made sweeping announcements about the United States' intention to root out terror in the world. Troops were committed to Afghanistan in an intial attempt to rout the influence of al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Four months later, he delivered his first State of the Union Address. It was in that address that he made the troublesome reference to "The Axis of Evil."

[Our second goal] is to prevent regimes (terrorist) that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens—leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections—then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

I thought about rehashing all that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea had been involved in that brought them to light during that address, but I don't think it's really necessary at this point.

Let's do this instead. Let's think of the events and incidents that have occurred in Iran and North Korea since January of this year. It's been since January that we have attempted to implement a foreign policy approach that engages these despotic regimes without precondition and without the hint of a suggestion that the Axis of Evil reference was really ever accurate.

Suddenly, though, we can't engage them in any kind of positive manner because these two nations have become so provocative and so antithetical to meaningful diplomatic discourse that diplomacy has now been reduced to squabbling in the press. They say we're interfering, and we say they're not to be taken seriously...

We have gone to great lengths over the past six months not to offend and it's getting us nowhere. In President Obama's inaugural address, he avoided references to terrorism and instead spoke of our "war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

By March, the Defense Department officially changed the name of the military operation our troops had been engaged in since 2001 from the "Global War on Terror" to the "Overseas Contingency Operation." Meanwhile, the terrorists are still at work.

Again, let's think about all that these two nations that President Bush designated as two of the players in the Axis of Evil have done over the past several months. Did Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address have these two nations right? If it did, are we now behaving as though we're fairly indifferent to it all, and are these two nations exploiting the change?

Former President Bush warned that "the price of indifference could be catastrophic." Indeed, if we get this wrong, we might one day find ourselves pointing the finger at our own Axis of Naïveté. Let's hope we pull it together before that happens.

The Value of Change

Regarding yesterday's post in which I wrote about today's American leadership regarding the "unalienable rights" of man, I wrote that I thought it was "important that the Iranian government realize that we are neither fooled nor impressed" by Iran's illusion of democracy and that although we might not be able or willing to prevent the abuse of Iranian citizens in the street, "we should be clear that we are not indifferent to it either."

My premise was that as the world's foremost leader in advocating the natural rights of man to life and liberty over the past 200 years, we needed to maintain that stature, even if it meant risking claims that we are interfering with the internal affairs of despotic nations. To a despot, comment of any kind from any quarter is interference.

I noted that our president finally said that he was "outraged and appalled" by the violence in the streets of Iran and the United States has rescinded its invitation to Iranian diplomats worldwide to celebrate the Fourth of July at American embassies (but none had RSVP'd anyway).

Reading the news today, I see that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has had something to say about the president's response. "We are surprised at Mr. Obama," Ahmadinejad said. "Didn't he say that he was after change? Why did he interfere?"

"They keep saying that they want to hold talks with Iran ... but is this the correct way? Definitely, they have made a mistake," Ahmadinejad said.

Our president commented about the protesters in Iran on Friday, "Their bravery in the face of brutality is a testament to their enduring pursuit of justice. The violence perpetrated against them is outrageous. In spite of the government's efforts to keep the world from bearing witness to that violence, we see it and we condemn it."

Clearly, the Iranian president is playing our president's interest in "change" against him and against our American values. "Change" is not a founding principle of this country and when the Iranian president suggests that an American response to the actions against freedom-loving Iranians threatens relations with Iran, we should quickly answer that it is Iran's actions against its people that threatens relations with Iran, then back those words up with additional diplomatic action. We should be clear about what is important to us as Americans, and that while we want "change," we will not change our values.

Pulse: Weak and Irregular

I look at the language of our diplomatic initiatives today and wonder where these words have disappeared to: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

These words aren't merely archaic expressions by some idealists who founded our nation. These are words that have formed the rationale for the expenditure of American lives and wealth at home and abroad for 200 years. They have literally reflected the visceral character of America for two centuries and they have inspired uprisings in the name of liberty and toppled harsh regimes throughout the world.

The thoughts behind the words have been practically timeless in mankind's political discourse. They have centuries of history in the philosophy of the nature of man behind them.

The ancient Greek Stoics believed that the human nature yearns for freedom in spite of a person's physical environment. They believed that whatever the physical condition of man was, the intrinsic nature of man can not be constrained. The Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca wrote, "the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined."

Centuries have passed since the days of classical political thought, but the idea of the natural rights of man has persisted: the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights (1689), and many other documents are testaments to the durability of the idea that man has natural rights that should find expression in public law. English philosopher John Locke, who had a profound influence on the Founders, wrote that man's natural rights - life, liberty, and property - were inherent in people and could not be compromised by man's law.

So, when Thomas Jefferson laid pen to paper in our Declaration of Independence, he took the first formal steps in establishing our acceptance of these rights as a nation - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - as not only "natural" rights, but also as inherent rights that form a legitimate basis for action to claim them, even if those actions included revolution.

These are words that have inspired others since our independence. The motto "liberte, egalite, fraternite" (liberty, equality, fraternity) of the French Revolution and the Canadian motto "peace, order, and good government" are examples. These words can be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the Constitution of Japan, and (believe it or not) Ho Chi Minh wrote these words into the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's declaration of independence after Japan's occupation ended there in 1945.

So, these words are more than a little bit of ink smeared on parchment. They have been the rationale for revolutions and the basis for our support of people seeking to exercise their natural rights throughout the world...

...except in Iran today.

When a friend of mine asked me the other day what I thought would happen in Iran in the aftermath of presidential elections there, I told her that I thought it could go one of two ways. On one hand, I thought the Iranian government's treatment of election protesters in the streets of Iran might be met by broad international condemnation and that America's legacy of standing loudly and decisively for the inalienable rights of mankind would find expression in a plainly-spoken diplomatic response by the United States. I thought we could give the kind of response that would sound familiar to our Founders and would give confidence and voice to the democratic movement in that country.

But I also thought that regardless of what we said, the Iranian government might not be impressed by the world's reaction and would continue its crackdown because, after all, it is a totalitarian regime that merely pretends to conduct democratic elections. In Iran, there is a difference between appearance and reality.

Either way, I thought it was important that the Iranian government realize that we are neither fooled nor impressed by their charade. We might not be able or willing to prevent the abuse, but we should be clear that we are not indifferent to it either.

In the end, the American response was lukewarm and tardy. After a week of concern that the Iranian government might claim we were meddling in Iranian internal affairs if the American government issued any strong denunciations, we finally emerged from our shell. Ultimately, the American president spoke up and said that he was "outraged and appalled" by the violence in the streets of Iran. In response, the Iranian president asked our president for a public apology for this reaction. There has been no public response from the American government.

Meanwhile, the United States has withdrawn its invitation to Iranian diplomats to attend Fourth of July celebrations at U. S. Embassies in less than two weeks (although the Iranians hadn't RSVP'd anyway). The offer in the first place was an outrageous affront to our founding principles and values, particularly in light of the face that recent events in Iran clearly demonstrate that snuggling up to the regime is not the answer.

So, the paramount effort right now is not to encourage and support the spontaneous democratization of totalitarian countries. It is now more important to normalize relations with nations that have responded with hostility to what they allege is past American hegemony in the region. Our new policy is to accept the characterization of our advocacy of the rights of man as "hegemony" and to essentially attempt to neutralize our enemies' hostility with confessions of guilt and apologies.

Our founding ideals are slipping. Our neutrality on a matter that has a uniquely American stamp on it is painfully significant to hopeful democrats around the world today. While the Iranian government continues its brutal crackdown on protesters in Iran, we are disgracefully fixated on other news today, and we will continue to be distracted over these next few critical days as the Iranian democratic movement stumbles and breaks down.

How weak and irregular is the pulse of these essential principles in us today...

Remembering

Our nation will be fixated for days over this week's loss of three show business icons: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, and Michael Jackson.

Ed McMahon was Johnny Carson's late night show sidekick for more than 30 years and was known as a man who became famous for helping make Johnny Carson famous. He served as a U. S. Marine during World War II and Korea. McMahon died Tuesday after battling pneumonia and bone cancer.

Farrah Fawcett was one of the three "Charlie's Angels" in the 1970s television series and she became a popular pinup poster model with a number of television and movie credits to her name. She bravely battled cancer for three years, seeking out aggressive treatments in her attempt to defeat the disease. She lost her battle today.

Michael Jackson has been known as the King of Pop Music. His dancing, music, and showmanship electified audiences throughout the world, but his conduct with and around children taint his image. This conduct will be a minor footnote in the glorification of his life. He died a few hours after Fawcett.

Ed McMahon's passing is already behind us and Farrah Fawcett's death will be a mere aside to Michael Jackson's. Jackson will be memorialized exhaustively with tens of thousands of people in feverish adoration and mourning over him.

I do not intend to toss water on anyone's remembrances, but I will say that when it comes to character, the greatest among them will be celebrated the least.

That is the nature of our culture. We admire what is popular rather than what is good. We selectively ignore behavior in celebrities while we would call for hangings if the guy down the street pulled the same stunts. We regard as "eccentric" conduct in celebrities that we would find as downright scary in anyone else.

We will be consumed for the next three or four days with Michael Jackson's life and legacy - at least the part we'll feel like talking about. In the meantime, we will quickly forget our celebrities who were normal enough to be good, humble, patriotic citizens. And we'll hardly be offended that the coverage of performers' courageous battles with terrible diseases will be overshadowed by the scandalous reporting we've seen of the least flattering moments of their final days.

I wish we were better at understanding, celebrating, and remembering greatness.

Brits Forfiet Fiesty Rules

The word is out that the British government is suggesting that teachers not teach the "i before e, except after c" rule because there are too many exceptions to it. They say the rule "is not worth teaching" because it doesn't cover words like sufficient, veil, and their.

Lord knows that we don't need to have rules of thumb that there are exceptions to. I mean, what good does it do to have a rule of thumb that will help kids spell most of the words correctly if it won't help them with a few exceptions. Now, maybe it'll be easier for them to teach kids to spell other words like wierd, nieghbor, and mischievous... (Or is it mischievious?)

Your Humble Servant

U. S. Army Brigadier General Michael Walsh is the commanding general of the Mississippi Valley Division of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, having returned Stateside a year ago from a tour in Iraq where he served as the commanding general of the Persian Gulf Region of the Corps of Engineers. He began his army career after graduating from the Polytechnic Institute of New York with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. He has also earned a master's degree in construction management from the University of Florida. He has served his country for some 32 years and has a chest full of decorations that reflect a bit of the nature of his service.

On Tuesday, June 16, BGen Walsh appeared before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify about the post-Katrina restoration of the Louisiana coast. Take a look at this video of an exchange between BGen Walsh and Senator Barbara Boxer of California.



Senator Boxer was a stock broker for a Wall Street firm from 1962 to 1965. She then worked as a journalist with the Pacific Sun newspaper from 1972 to 1974 before serving as a congressional aide for two years from 1974 to 1976. She was a member of the Marin County (CA) Board of Supervisors for six years from 1977 to 1983. She was elected to the U. S. House of Representatives in 1983 and served there for 10 years before winning election to the Senate in 1993. She has a bachelor's degree in economics from Brooklyn College.

Whether Senator Boxer should be swinging the title the voters of California entrusted her with like a club is a matter for some debate maybe, but I don't see it. I would argue that the role the Framers of the Constitution had in mind for legislators was as servants of the people not as bullies of the people. Personally, I am irritated when I see some of our elected officials behave as demagogues and demigods and -goddesses and use their elected positions to push people around and degrade and humiliate them for their own gratification. I think it's just wrong.

For Senator Boxer to force the issue in that venue and in that tone was a gratuitously abusive, disproportionate, inappropriate, and disrespectful use of her power as a Senator.

I might not have been so out of sorts about this had she addressed him as "general" when she called him down, but in demanding an extra measure of deferential courtesy from him, she failed to extend him the same consideration. Clearly, he has earned it, whereas she has her position by the good graces (and dubious judgment) of the people of California.